Joshua Coker

Joshua L. Coker

(he/him/his)

Associate

Joshua L. Coker

(he/him/his)

Associate

  • Overview

    Biography

    Joshua Coker is a member of the firm’s Litigation Section as well as the Construction Law Group and Construction Industry Team. Prior to joining Robinson+Cole, Josh served as a legal extern with the Office of the New York State Attorney General while attending law school.  Josh’s work included matters involving civil rights, consumer fraud, wrongful death, and pandemic response.

    Josh’s experience includes two stints as a legal intern with the Office of the Ithaca City Attorney, as well as serving as a law clerk for the Cook County Public Defender in Illinois. He also served a two-year term (2016-2018) as a Commissioner on the Monroe County Women’s Commission in Indiana assisting the County and City of Bloomington governments in the development of gender equity policy, conducting research and making policy recommendations to the county government. In this role, Josh acted as a liaison to community organizations with similar goals, worked with local non-profit and for-profit organizations to help advance the county’s policy objectives, and collaborated with officials to help develop the City of Bloomington’s 2017-2020 Strategic Plan. 

    While in law school, Josh collaborated with a law professor and another law student in researching and drafting an amicus brief for the D.C. Circuit, challenging the constitutionality of the use of secret evidence as the basis for the extrajudicial killing of American citizens using drone strikes.  

  • NEWS + PRESS
    • Publications

      Publications

      "What May Shape The Scope Of Affirmative Action Ruling," co-authored with Mallori D. Thompson and Seth B. Orkand, published in Law360 Expert Analysis (11/6/2022)
      • » more info

        • What May Shape The Scope Of Affirmative Action Ruling

        "What May Shape The Scope Of Affirmative Action Ruling," co-authored by Joshua L. Coker, Mallori D. Thompson and Seth B. Orkand, published in Law360 Expert Analysis (11/6/2022)

        The “Expert Analysis” article examines the affirmative action cases Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina and Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, dating from November and February 2021, respectively, following oral arguments presented before the U.S. Supreme Court. The authors conclude that “the fate of race-conscious admissions in higher education is no longer in any real doubt." The two cases closely resemble the most recent attempt in Fisher II (2016) to prohibit university admissions from considering race, in which the court’s then-majority determined that consideration of racial minority status was constitutional because the educational benefit of diversity in collegiate environments was 1) a sufficiently measurable compelling interest and 2) there was not a workable, race-neutral alternative to achieve diversity. Since then, the composition of the court’s justices has shifted dramatically to the right. However, the authors note that “there appear to be divisions within the court’s conservative bloc that may shape the breadth of holdings for the cases’ common petitioner.”

      • View article

    • News

      R+C in the News

      • November 8, 2022

        Litigation Section Lawyers Author Law360 Article on the Future Reach of Affirmative Action Ruling

        • » more info

          Litigation Section Lawyers Author Law360 Article on the Future Reach of Affirmative Action Ruling

          Seth B. Orkand, Joshua L. Coker and Mallori D. Thompson, members of the firm’s Litigation Section, authored the article “What May Shape The Scope Of Affirmative Action Ruling,” published by Law360 on November 6, 2022. The “Expert Analysis” article examines the affirmative action cases Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina and Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, dating from November and February 2021, respectively, following oral arguments presented before the U.S. Supreme Court. The authors conclude that “the fate of race-conscious admissions in higher education is no longer in any real doubt." The two cases closely resemble the most recent attempt in Fisher II (2016) to prohibit university admissions from considering race, in which the court’s then-majority determined that consideration of racial minority status was constitutional because the educational benefit of diversity in collegiate environments was 1) a sufficiently measurable compelling interest and 2) there was not a workable, race-neutral alternative to achieve diversity. Since then, the composition of the court’s justices has shifted dramatically to the right. However, the authors note that “there appear to be divisions within the court’s conservative bloc that may shape the breadth of holdings for the cases’ common petitioner.” Read the article.

        • View article
      • September 15, 2021

        Robinson+Cole Welcomes Fall Class

    • Legal Updates/Newsletters

      Legal Updates/Newsletters

      "The Walsh Act: Discovery from U.S. Citizens Living Abroad" co-authored with Benjamin M. Daniels (5/10/2022)

      "Spotlight on Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College" co-authored with Seth B. Orkand (April 2022)